<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (2) TMI 314 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93391</link>
    <description>Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits additional evidence only where it assists the Tribunal in passing appropriate orders. Affidavits already relating to matters raised in argument were held unnecessary, because oral assertions could be answered by oral rebuttal and the proposed material would only widen the proceedings and cause delay. The affidavits were therefore refused admission and not taken on record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:24:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 314 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93391</link>
      <description>Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits additional evidence only where it assists the Tribunal in passing appropriate orders. Affidavits already relating to matters raised in argument were held unnecessary, because oral assertions could be answered by oral rebuttal and the proposed material would only widen the proceedings and cause delay. The affidavits were therefore refused admission and not taken on record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>